I notice you discount the 4 titles won from 1st or 2nd to prove your point but nevermind. In those 6 October Saturdays, "Sir Kev" has achieved more than you can ever hope to in your sad pathetic little life (unless you equate bites on an internet forum as success)!

Which is ironic given that a few years ago someone with similar views to William was adamant that playoff placings was what mattered not regular round placings, relegating Leeds to 6th in 2006 after the loss to Warrington instead of 3rd.

Did said person go by the initials A and P?

You know what they just might have done. I suppose it depends if they were banned or not at the time

nail on head

It's a shame that he hasn't continued with this train of thought these past 2 seasons and promoted us from 5th to 1st,but then again it wouldn't suit his agenda

I'm pretty sure the same individual used to post about how one of the many reasons that SL would never live up to the mighty NRL was because only the top 2 were real contenders for the title

I agree with much of what William Eve is saying. The intensity has dropped off during the league in recent years. However its hard to know for certain whether the teams at the top are getting worse or the teams at the bottom are getting better. I do remember after Leeds vs Saints part 3 that there was also an air of inevitability about the season, that Leeds and Siants would finish 1 & 2 and would then play each other in the GF (which Leeds would win).

I for one don't think the play offs are flawed, and that 5th is the bets place to finish I just think Leeds have become the best at playing the game for the whole season and peaking at the correct time.

I can see that if more of the top teams follow Leeds' example and play at a lower intensity then the result could be that fans are turned off as the product is not as attractive as once it was

I agree with much of the above re the intensity of regular season games. I'm less sure of the causes. Whilst it's almost certain that the top teams - and by this I don't just mean Leeds - try to peak at the season's end, it doesn't really explain why the lesser teams, who must know they've got little chance at the business end, often play with a similar lack of intensity in the regular games.

Here's my theory. Some time ago the English game recognised it was way behind it's Australian counterpart. It duly appointed Australian coaches and utilised Australian tactics in order to bring itself closer to southern hemisphere standards. And for a while this worked, albeit partially, as our game continued to produce talented individuals who were then introduced to better structures. However - and this is where things began to go wrong - coaches began to drill youngsters in similar fashion. The net result has been the production of players who've been taught how to choreograph their tackling efforts, have been brought up to curb their tempers and aggression in the name of the game plan and have been dissuaded from most kinds of experimentation. I'm not saying that basic skill levels haven't improved - they most certainly have - but for me the spectacle's suffering. Very little to do with the play offs IMO. The remedy is to let the natural competitive nature of English players shine through a bit more, reintroduce a bit more give and take from the refs (best route to the much-yearned consistency in my book) and the game will be all the better for it.

Much criticism has been thrown Leeds' way for this 'intensity' and peak performance thing but i think more questions should be asked of their rivals. Yes Leeds did drop off at times but they also peaked at the beginning (WCC) around the middle (CC Semi) and the end (Playoffs), they also stuck with the same players whilst rivals used more squad rotation in an effort to keep them fresh. Comparing some of the others,

- Wigan finished top but started slowly losing to Hudds at home, the performances really kicked in around May/June time when they were very good, but from the time they lost Leuluai in mid-June (Round 1icon_cool.gif they never got near peak performance again, plenty of time to 're-peak' surely for the playoffs? They also lost both times to their nearest rivals in the league Wire so they didn't exactly always get it right too, they also tried resting players (Widnes Away, Bradford Home) which bite them on the backside.
- Warrington finished 2nd but never got close to the form they showed in 2011 IMO, getting victories simply due to squad quaility and not some great peak period. They would rest Briers, Hodgson, Morley etc whenever possible, even some of their younger guys like Atkins. They did knock over Wigan twice in the league but they also lost to Saints, Catalans and even 'not bothered' Leeds. They did finish better than Wigan but having never fully got up to top peak and with squad rotation they should of performed better in the playoffs than just one great 2nd half vs Saints.
- Saints got off to a shocker until Simmonds was sacked. After that they played good to close the gap on Wigan and Wire but with a earlyish (for them) exit from the CC they could just quietly go about their business. They only played 32 games compared to Leeds (37) & Wire (36) and they didn't even turn up for the first 7 that Simmonds was in charge for.
- Catalans and Hudds, good early season form but hadn't 'peaked' for a long time before the playoffs started. Should have had more in the tank but both weakly got 40+ scored past them in Playoff games.
- Hull got off to a great start....P9 W7 D1 L1.......but Round 9 until the Playoffs is a long time. To be fair i thought they gave a good account of themselves in the Playoffs, probably showing the 2nd best effort behind Leeds, they just lacked the quaility in the pivot positions to trouble Warrington.

I can't look back at the form over the course of the full season and think that any of the opposition should have run out of gas or peak performance anymore than Leeds. Take into account also the desire factor, most Leeds players have won the GF many times, other teams might have been happy with their lot and looked at Catalans and Wigan Away and then Wire and said ''no thanks, i've got enough Rings already'', not these guys. They really have no logical right to be as hungry for GF success more than the others but yet they've shown they want it more regardless of numerous past victories.

I wonder if the Sir Kev mask's will be worn during the coming season?

I keep reading the comments on intensity, and there are some things worth considering:
- If you had been knocking the hell out of your body on a weekly basis for at least the last ten years, wouldn't you have the odd off-day. I bet everyone here gives their utmost every day they are at work....not. I am not saying they do this purposely, but wouldn't you pick to have an off day in games that matter less.
- If you go back to 2004 we were by far the best team, without a doubt. Look how far ahead we were at the end of the season, scoring 70 points against top sides on a number of occassions. We have been spoilt and can't understand why we aren't still doing this. Likelhood is it will never happen again.
- Given our players have been around a long time, then opposition coaches will better understand how to nulify their positive play. It is only because they are so good that they can continue to win despite this.
- As the teams have limited numbers in their squads, I am pretty sure many of them play on with injuries whereas if they had a larger stronger squad they would take time off.

Stevo

Happy Sir Kevin Sinfield Day everyone.